5 ms·

Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".

by imgabe 6y ago

AHappyCamper 6y ago
Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every comment and every email for potential sources of offense - we need to convey info as fast as possible.
- Guthur 6y ago
  This has become a problem because the internet social networking has opened up the potential of mob justice tar and feathering that is causing people real harm in terms of their livelihood and I'd imagine mental well being.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Could you just say “slave market” or “illegal market”? Of course, black in this context refers to the transactions being performed in the shadows, and has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the participants in the market. It’s all a bit absurd, but it’s also a trivial change to adopt. And now I’ve offended adopties. I jest.
  - cglace 6y ago
    I don’t think it’s trivial if we are to the point where we are censoring completely benign words.
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      >> where we are censoring completely benign words Are you saying in any context? That's not the proposal as i read it. >> >> Could you just say >> censoring For censoring to be the case, it must be that you can't use particular words. I read the case as 1. the GP's post expressing a desire to show heightened care to a reader 2. your parent posting a possible solution Taking this to an extreme, if both behaviours above were to become a social norm then some words in some contexts would become extremely frowned upon to the point that you would personally choose not to use them. They'd still not be censored though. Documents would continue to be written with the offensive terms by those who seek to offend. The words would be used in the socially unacceptable way in service of making a stronger point.
      - cglace 6y ago
        I was using "we" to mean "we" would be self-censoring.
        CraigJPerry 6y ago
        self-censor? Your original post makes no sense then, how can you self-censor a word that you self deem to be benign? You’d have to recognise that the word wasn’t benign in that context first?
        cglace 6y ago
        Go back to the original parent of this thread. The concept was he self censored due to the fear of someone being offended.
        CraigJPerry 6y ago
        Thats not true - where does he self censor? > So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.
  - AHappyCamper 6y ago
    Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops, and instead of focussing on how to save slaves from a life of misery, you're instead having meetings on which words are less offensive in your posts, messages, and internal communiques. The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the new terms you've chosen all of a sudden become not acceptable? If we agree that many types of non-threatening speech are no longer allowed, it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas, especially in high-stress areas like this one. Imagine a medic who waits to treat a homeless person who has overdosed because they can't remember the politically correct way to refer to the person, and they need to radio into the command center first before they begin treatment. So the person dies because the stressed out medic couldn't remember the politically correct terminology because they were trying to work out the best course of treatment...
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      >> Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops ... you're instead having meetings Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem. >> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end? >> especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade There's a bigger point can be made here, what if you're dealing with a topic you don't know well enough to navigate possible sources of offence? If you don't know, then your 2 choices are learn or ignore, it's possible that both of these are valid choices depending on context. >> no longer allowed "Allowed" is quite a vague term for the concept you raise - are we saying law against particular words or are we saying social norm and convention that can be broken in art, in protest, in challenge to the status quo? If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified. >> Imagine Or don't. Slippery slope fallacy is a real danger in itself to be avoided.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  You are right and I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. They suck. There is no hope for that kind of faked fragility. Somewhere will always claim to be offended by something you say or do, to the point that the only safe thing for you to do is nothing at all (maybe). Much better stay true to your heart and plow ahead with the good work your are doing. Good people will see it and as to the others, fuck them.
  - neilparikh 6y ago
    > I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work, because these people have the power to have a significant negative impact on your life (get you fired, ruin your reputation etc).
- bluntfang 6y ago
  Is there a term for when someone says something, followed by 'but', then something that completely invalidates the first sentence?
  - giardini 6y ago
    Either "contradiction" or "self-contradiction" would serve.
Shivetya 6y ago
Because it works. Because instead of discussing an issue they have found they can hurt anyone who does not wholly agree with their position. Then they celebrate that damage and are encouraged to continue to do so with impunity never once imagining they will be on the other side. The recent news stories about it happening in newsrooms and businesses should be no surprise when those stories were occurring with colleges for years prior. They learned they can take their heckler's veto to beyond silencing to the point of causing real damage. People used to throw up the bogeyman of the religious right silencing the masses but instead we have the tyranny of the left to whom ideas are weapons and justification comes by laying claim that physical threat exists in mere thoughts and that justifies real punishment. Be honest, I can guarantee many here are enjoying it to the point of glee but that is because you have been market researched manipulated by politicians into a certain pattern of thinking and reaction. Now that reaction is turning violent and it will eat both sides.
sam_goody 6y ago
On HN, if you disagree with a comment, you downvote it and punish the author. (Or, at least, that is the common way to respond, and for good reason - the only "disagree" button is the one that hurts the credit of the OP) This especially hurts new commenters, whose credit is fragile (and who don't know the cap on down-votes). Which keeps the conversation "safe", and the lurkers quiet. Cynical me thinks this is a reflection of a society that thinks we need to quiet (and punish) everyone who disagrees with them. EDIT: Replaced "he" with a gender neutral term to be safe.
- jstanley 6y ago
  > (Or, at least, that is the common way to respond, and for good reason - the only "disagree" button is the one that hurts the credit of the OP) I don't think that's a good reason. You should downvote if you think someone is arguing disingenuously or otherwise writing nonsense that doesn't belong on HN. If you merely disagree, you should upvote instead, and articulate your disagreement in a reply.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I agree with this. It's very frustrating to see people downvoted (even when I disagree with them) when they have articulated their argument eloquently or made an original point. It happens a lot here, and it doesn't reflect well on those doing it IMO.
  - sam_goody 6y ago
    I agree with you 100%, and that is what I try to do myself. I think it is wrong of HN to not have a disagree but great comment button, hence my complaint about it reflecting a negative aspect of society. But, the common practice is to do as I described. Case in point, my comment was down-voted! I clearly agree with you, and am pointing out an unfortunate fact, but since someone don't like that fact, I lost a point.
kiplkipl 6y ago
These are weasel words

Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".

by imgabe 6y ago

Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".

AHappyCamper 6y ago

Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every comment and every email for potential sources of offense - we need to convey info as fast as possible.

Guthur 6y ago
This has become a problem because the internet social networking has opened up the potential of mob justice tar and feathering that is causing people real harm in terms of their livelihood and I'd imagine mental well being.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Could you just say “slave market” or “illegal market”? Of course, black in this context refers to the transactions being performed in the shadows, and has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the participants in the market. It’s all a bit absurd, but it’s also a trivial change to adopt. And now I’ve offended adopties. I jest.
- cglace 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s trivial if we are to the point where we are censoring completely benign words.
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> where we are censoring completely benign words Are you saying in any context? That's not the proposal as i read it. >> >> Could you just say >> censoring For censoring to be the case, it must be that you can't use particular words. I read the case as 1. the GP's post expressing a desire to show heightened care to a reader 2. your parent posting a possible solution Taking this to an extreme, if both behaviours above were to become a social norm then some words in some contexts would become extremely frowned upon to the point that you would personally choose not to use them. They'd still not be censored though. Documents would continue to be written with the offensive terms by those who seek to offend. The words would be used in the socially unacceptable way in service of making a stronger point.
    - cglace 6y ago
      I was using "we" to mean "we" would be self-censoring.
      - CraigJPerry 6y ago
        self-censor? Your original post makes no sense then, how can you self-censor a word that you self deem to be benign? You’d have to recognise that the word wasn’t benign in that context first?
        cglace 6y ago
        Go back to the original parent of this thread. The concept was he self censored due to the fear of someone being offended.
        CraigJPerry 6y ago
        Thats not true - where does he self censor? > So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.
- AHappyCamper 6y ago
  Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops, and instead of focussing on how to save slaves from a life of misery, you're instead having meetings on which words are less offensive in your posts, messages, and internal communiques. The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the new terms you've chosen all of a sudden become not acceptable? If we agree that many types of non-threatening speech are no longer allowed, it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas, especially in high-stress areas like this one. Imagine a medic who waits to treat a homeless person who has overdosed because they can't remember the politically correct way to refer to the person, and they need to radio into the command center first before they begin treatment. So the person dies because the stressed out medic couldn't remember the politically correct terminology because they were trying to work out the best course of treatment...
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops ... you're instead having meetings Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem. >> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end? >> especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade There's a bigger point can be made here, what if you're dealing with a topic you don't know well enough to navigate possible sources of offence? If you don't know, then your 2 choices are learn or ignore, it's possible that both of these are valid choices depending on context. >> no longer allowed "Allowed" is quite a vague term for the concept you raise - are we saying law against particular words or are we saying social norm and convention that can be broken in art, in protest, in challenge to the status quo? If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified. >> Imagine Or don't. Slippery slope fallacy is a real danger in itself to be avoided.
zarkov99 6y ago
You are right and I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. They suck. There is no hope for that kind of faked fragility. Somewhere will always claim to be offended by something you say or do, to the point that the only safe thing for you to do is nothing at all (maybe). Much better stay true to your heart and plow ahead with the good work your are doing. Good people will see it and as to the others, fuck them.
- neilparikh 6y ago
  > I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work, because these people have the power to have a significant negative impact on your life (get you fired, ruin your reputation etc).
bluntfang 6y ago
Is there a term for when someone says something, followed by 'but', then something that completely invalidates the first sentence?
- giardini 6y ago
  Either "contradiction" or "self-contradiction" would serve.

Shivetya 6y ago

Because it works. Because instead of discussing an issue they have found they can hurt anyone who does not wholly agree with their position. Then they celebrate that damage and are encouraged to continue to do so with impunity never once imagining they will be on the other side. The recent news stories about it happening in newsrooms and businesses should be no surprise when those stories were occurring with colleges for years prior. They learned they can take their heckler's veto to beyond silencing to the point of causing real damage. People used to throw up the bogeyman of the religious right silencing the masses but instead we have the tyranny of the left to whom ideas are weapons and justification comes by laying claim that physical threat exists in mere thoughts and that justifies real punishment. Be honest, I can guarantee many here are enjoying it to the point of glee but that is because you have been market researched manipulated by politicians into a certain pattern of thinking and reaction. Now that reaction is turning violent and it will eat both sides.

sam_goody 6y ago

On HN, if you disagree with a comment, you downvote it and punish the author. (Or, at least, that is the common way to respond, and for good reason - the only "disagree" button is the one that hurts the credit of the OP) This especially hurts new commenters, whose credit is fragile (and who don't know the cap on down-votes). Which keeps the conversation "safe", and the lurkers quiet. Cynical me thinks this is a reflection of a society that thinks we need to quiet (and punish) everyone who disagrees with them. EDIT: Replaced "he" with a gender neutral term to be safe.

jstanley 6y ago
> (Or, at least, that is the common way to respond, and for good reason - the only "disagree" button is the one that hurts the credit of the OP) I don't think that's a good reason. You should downvote if you think someone is arguing disingenuously or otherwise writing nonsense that doesn't belong on HN. If you merely disagree, you should upvote instead, and articulate your disagreement in a reply.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  I agree with this. It's very frustrating to see people downvoted (even when I disagree with them) when they have articulated their argument eloquently or made an original point. It happens a lot here, and it doesn't reflect well on those doing it IMO.
- sam_goody 6y ago
  I agree with you 100%, and that is what I try to do myself. I think it is wrong of HN to not have a disagree but great comment button, hence my complaint about it reflecting a negative aspect of society. But, the common practice is to do as I described. Case in point, my comment was down-voted! I clearly agree with you, and am pointing out an unfortunate fact, but since someone don't like that fact, I lost a point.

kiplkipl 6y ago

These are weasel words